


The Princess Bride and Sherlock Meta Series

by LillysLiterature (LillysoftheValley)



Category: Sherlock (TV), Sherlock Holmes & Related Fandoms, The Princess Bride - William Goldman
Genre: Meta, Nonfiction, Original work - Freeform
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-09-20
Updated: 2021-01-03
Packaged: 2021-03-07 20:01:34
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 3
Words: 3,608
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/26563285
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/LillysoftheValley/pseuds/LillysLiterature
Summary: Sherlockcreator Steven Moffat has cited The Princess Bride as one of his favorite books. This series of meta-textual essays will explore how William Goldman's work has influenced modern storytelling and particularly the structure ofSherlock.
Comments: 7
Kudos: 4





	1. An Introduction

Welcome to my meta series exploring how The Princess Bride and Sherlock intersect! You may have seen these on [ Dreamwidth ](https://lillysofthevalley.dreamwidth.org/) or [ Pillowfort ](https://www.pillowfort.social/LillysoftheValley/tagged/meta) and now they can be accessed here! I plan on expanding upon each piece a little as I upload, adding more detail and making the whole set more cohesive. I absolutely welcome comments and discussion!  
  
I love The Princess Bride. I've seen it so often I can recite it backwards. I choose not to skip the parenthesis when I read it. It's great storytelling. And I was thrilled to see it in Sherlock the first time I tuned in to A Study in Pink. But that's not the only instance in the series, or even in that episode, of Goldman's work appearing in Sherlock. I've been an avid meta reader for years and now, as these wonderful writers ponder why the show was Like That in the end, it hit me.  
  
They have been using William Goldman's storytelling techniques to convey the story Doyle was writing.  
  
The structure of the Princess Bride (PB) is being used to tell the story of John and Sherlock. That's why it's not a direct translation of the stories like other adaptations. The journey of the characters is the important bit so the adventures become cobbled together to best display how the protagonists learn about each other. The structure is in fact similar to how Doyle wrote in the first place.  


In the broadest strokes:

  * An author writes about the exploits of someone they know, fictionalizing some sensitive details (John Watson and S. Morgenstern)
  * A secondary author publishes this narrative (Doyle and Goldman)
  * An audience reads and interacts with this narrative and changes it (Mourning Sherlock Holmes so hard Doyle resurrected him and The Grandson insisting on not hearing the kissing parts)



The act of telling and engaging with a story is as important as the narrative itself and both Narrator and Audience can change the story being told. Now, with this new series, we are simultaneously The Grandson and the audience watching the Grandson. We are being told the story and we are helping to retell it.


	2. Don't Skip the Parenthesis

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> An examination of parenthesis in The Princess Bride as a narrative device and how this correlates to John's blog, presented in three sections. Contains spoilers for the novel. All quotes taken from the 2013 illustrated edition.

###### It Lets the Readers Know You're Human

When you read The Princess Bride, you notice right away that Morgenstern likes parenthesis. He uses them as a narrative device to give the reader little asides that comment on characters, or history, or what his wife thinks of the story. These are conversational in tone, added like commentary an oral storyteller would pepper into a tale.

"The land of Florin was set between where Sweden and Germany would eventually settle. (This was before Europe.)" pg 41

"(This was their thirty-third spat of the day - this was long after spats - and he was behind, thirteen to twenty, but he had made up a lot of distance since lunch, when it was seventeen to two against him.)" pg 44 [Buttercup's parents have been bickering]

And my favorite: "The horse's name was 'Horse' (Buttercup was never long on imagination)." pg. 37

These are all in the first chapter and they continue in much the same vein throughout the story. It's kind of similar to the way Lemony Snickett writes, both telling the story and engaging in the act of Telling the story, actively including the reader in consuming the narrative.

When William Goldman started his abridgment, he left in most of these asides. Mainly, he excluded the ones that featured Morgenstern's wife because they were largely unnecessary and self-complimentary. Goldman's own parenthesis are also throughout the book, explaining in large chunks of italics where and why he made cuts to the original story. These interjections are also conversational, featuring anecdotes about his childhood and hearing the story for the first time, and his battles with editors over what Morgenstern meant with all the comments.

_How can it be before Europe but after Paris?...I am going crazy. What am I to make of these parenthesis? When does this book take place? I don't understand anything. Hellllppppp!!!_ pg 43

He explains: _Either Morgenstern meant them seriously or he didn't...[bold my own] Or maybe it was just the author's way of telling the reader stylistically that 'this isn't real; it never happened.' That's what I think, in spite of the fact that if you read back into Florinese history, it did happen ... All I can suggest to you is, if the parenthesis bug you, don't read them._ pg 43

I happen to love the parenthesis. They're funny. It makes everything seem more real. And that's the whole point of them, anyway. Which is exactly the explanation John gives when Sherlock complains about him writing about the unsolved cases. It lets the readers know Sherlock is human; it's more interesting that way.

###### Adding Your Own Bits

Goldman cut all the mentions of Morgenstern's wife, except one.

Right after Buttercup and Westley are reunited, after rolling down that big hill before the Fire Swamp, Morgenstern offers to 'give them privacy' and not include any of the sweet nothings they may have said to each other. He tells the reader that his wife felt cheated out of a tender love scene. Morgenstern explains in a numbered list (another device he uses throughout the story) that whatever may have been said was rather sappy and of no real consequence to the plot.

Goldman then cuts in to say this:

"I think it was unfair not to show the reunion. So I wrote one of my own, what I felt Buttercup and Westley might have said, but Hiram, my editor, felt that made me just as unfair as Morgenstern here. **If you're going to abridge of book in the author's own words, you can't go around sticking your own in.** " pg 195 [bold my own]

So, Goldman did the next best thing and included the address of his publisher with the hope that people would write in and request a copy of the scene he wrote. The address has changed as new editions are printed, with the most recent ones including a website link. He says the publisher doesn't really expect anyone to write, but, according to an L.A. Times article from '87, the year the movie came out, that was not the case.

"So has anybody written in?

Only about 400 to 500 a week since the movie opened. Before then, the book generated about 100 letters a week for Urban del Rey, which published the paperback in 1974, and half a dozen letters a week for Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, which published the book in hardcover the year before." **1**

A lot of people were genuinely curious to read the scene, or just wondered if there would be any response. Lucky for them, Goldman was prepared. But what he was prepared with was not the scene, but an apology that there would be no scene because of legal troubles with the Morgenstern estate, so try again in '78. But in '78, the date was revealed to be a typo, try again in '87. Of course, by '87, with the movie made (and tender words of love included there), the apology changed again owing to yet more legal red tape. More post scripts were added for the 1998 and 2003 editions, the 25th and 30th anniversaries respectively, where readers could now request the scene on the publisher's web site. However, once accessed, the diligent scene detectives were rewarded only with the full text of all those apology letters. **2**

It's a brilliant move. It keeps readers interested, and it adds something to the whole myth of the story.

Does this sound at all familiar?

Sounds a bit like the creative team of Sherlock hiring someone specifically to make several in-character websites that can be accessed by the audience outside the narrative that add little details to the plot and keeps the audience actively engaged in the storytelling.

It's a meta-narrative device where the original author (John) engages with his own story (the cases) but the abridgers (Steven and Mark) engage the audience in the story outside of the show. There is additional material here that contributes to how the audience understands the story. As we know, the abridgers have been adding and adapting from many other pieces of media throughout the series. So, is that bending the rules -- as Hiram the editor told Goldman -- adding their own words to a story that already exists?

It seems like a lot of trouble to go through for a modern adaptation of the Holmes stories. The blog, and Sherlock's website, are already a main feature in the show. The blog is a diary for John; the website a way for Sherlock to find clients, and for Moriarty to find him. John's blog becomes more popular the more he writes about working with Sherlock. As the series progresses, the truthfulness comes into question and so does the authorship which makes both characters and audience question what has been real. So can we as the audience trust anything that's on the blog? And who are these characters leaving comments? Are they invented, too?

###### Which Lie Did I Tell?

Who is really the author here? Is it John the character, or is it Steven and Mark? Which one is Morgenstern and which one is Goldman? Is it a double bluff, or a triple bluff? A trick, or a plan?

Both, really, because the big twist of the parenthesis is: they're all made up. Everything about The Princess Bride is invented, parenthesis and italics included.

S. Morgenstern is William Goldman just like John Watson is Doyle.

"But, obviously, as everyone reading this blog now knows, all our cases were faked. They weren't real. None of it was real. It's all just lies. Isn't it?

That's one for you, Sherlock." - Death by Twitter post, John's blog **3**

The story of Goldman's father reading him this book from his home country - fake. Goldman calling every bookshop in New York looking for a copy to give his own son - fake. Florin, the scholars at Columbia, the Morgenstern estate - all fake. There is some truth in there: the publishing companies did exist; they did receive letters about the reunion scene; Goldman did have pneumonia, but as an adult; he was married (and divorced, and possibly considered an affair) but he changed the name of the wife. There's just enough truth to hide the lie, to perpetuate the myth. Goldman created an author, who created a story, then Goldman-as-abridger made himself a character in his own story. A very nested-egg way of framing a story, and very similar to the film 'Reichenbach Falls' (about which tumblr user devoursjohnlock has written a wonderful meta). **4**

So it follows that: if John's blog is the parenthesis, then at least some of it is fake; John (as a character) is inventing things, which lines up with the Alibi theory. Perhaps even all of it is fake (in the context of the narrative), since John technically doesn't exist either. Perhaps this is another explanation for why the BBC put up that disclaimer that John is no longer updating.

I know, this is really confusing. We as the audience know that the blog we can access is a construct of the showrunners meant for engagement. It's a wink. It's publicity. There's a hidden message box, a bookmark for the creators, on each entry.

"Follow John Watson's adventures with Sherlock Holmes after his return from Afghanistan, his first meeting with Sherlock via Mike Stamford and moving into Mrs. Hudson's 221b Baker Street address in this fictional blog to coincide with the BBC One drama Sherlock."

We know it's fake. But, it also serves a function in the narrative of the show so within that context it's real. Other characters interact with it, they reference it, and it eventually becomes a big plot point when Sherlock is labeled a fraud. So there are two layers of functionality, just like Morgenstern's parenthesis commenting on the narrative of Buttercup and Westley versus Goldman's italics commenting on abridging that narrative. This leaves us with Why the blog is being used as this kind of literary device.

Remembering the Game, where the point is to convince Sherlock he's fictional, perhaps this is the why. The blog, in addition to the skull, the sudden change from left to right handed, all the barking of dogs, the rabbit, serve to "[tell] the reader stylistically that 'this isn't real; it never happened.' "

There's one last facet to all this play between reality and fantasy, fiction and truth. Remember that for all blog adds to the narrative, there's also material that John leaves out. In all Goldman's cuts, many don't take out much from the narrative. They're filler, what he describes as Morgenstern's lovingly satirical take on the history of Florin. But there is one major omission. Chapter Four - The Preparations. The chapter that doesn't exist.

"I didn't even know this chapter existed until I began the 'good parts' version. All my father used to say at this point was, 'What with one thing and another, three years passed..." pg 89. (This is changed to five years in the movie.)

This is apparently the longest chapter in the 'original' manuscript.' "But from a narrative point of view, in 105 pages nothing happens."

Chapter Five of PB is what most of the screenplay is drawn from. That's where all the action is. The kidnapping, the iocane powder, the Cliffs of Insanity, Fezzik and Inigo's backstory, the Fire Swamp and the R.O.U.S.'s, all of that takes place in Chapter Five. And right before that, there's an entire chapter that simply doesn't exist. Or, it did exist and the abridger purposefully removed it? We have been looking at S4 and wondering - what was all that? Maybe this is the answer.

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> 1\. [L.A. Times article, 1987](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-10-23-ca-10730-story.html)  
> [Return]
> 
> 2\. [ The letter sent to readers who requested the reunion scene.](https://web.archive.org/web/20180118093944/https://splitsider.com/2012/01/the-princess-bride-letters/)  
> [Return]
> 
> 3\. [John's blog entry for May 23](http://johnwatsonblog.co.uk/blog/23may)  
> [Return]
> 
> 4\. [The ACiD Test, devoursjohnlock](https://devoursjohnlock.tumblr.com/post/186616962411/the-acid-test)  
> [Return]


	3. Have you been Wicked, Countess?

The characters in Canon and those in Princess Bride serve certain narrative purposes which are bridged together to tell the story in Sherlock. There are similarities in archetype and symbolism that can be found in lots of other stories, this is what storytelling is. There are just enough specifics that stand out to make PB a touchstone. The way PB is structured is a heavy influence on how Sherlock is structured and looking at WHY certain characters are present in the way they are is going to tell us a lot about the narrative as a whole.

What Irene Adler has always been good at as a character is playing the game. She matches Sherlock's wit and he respects her for it. That's what sets her apart as The Woman. But she is more astute in matters of the heart (and flesh) than Sherlock realizes and sees right to the heart of what’s going on between himself and John. (What she does with that information is another matter)

In this adaptation, The Woman is her work persona. It is a mask she wears that she adapts depending on the client and a tool she wields with expert precision. It's how she gets under Sherlock's skin and beats him at his own game, becoming someone neither he nor John can forget. Even two seasons later, they're still talking about The Woman, the one who got away. But why? Why would this character affect them both so deeply? What purpose is she serving in the narrative being presented this way?

Irene both outwits and out flirts Sherlock throughout the episode and as much as it impresses him, it drives him nuts. But it also eats away at John so deeply that he still thinks she's the one Sherlock needs to confess feelings to. She is there to make them both jealous, that much is obvious, but of what, and why? 

Is Sherlock so convinced she'll whisk John away to a world of sex where he can't follow? Is John worried he still isn't smart enough for Sherlock to keep around and he'll have to start all over again with nothing?

So much of the episode is focused on "love." This idea of what love is. Love conflated with sexual attraction. Love as a chemical influence that must be ignored for the sake of the work. Love as something that can be exploited. Love as a thing that must be kept behind closed doors, locked phones, to be shut out or pushed away until - too late - it's gone forever. 

The game Sherlock and Irene play is one of the brain, but also the heart. Brainy is the new sexy vs. John thinks love is a mystery to me. He doesn't expect Irene to be quite so good at what she does and she doesn't expect him to know where to look.

Irene uses her sexual appeal to throw Sherlock off balance the first time they meet. He's in unfamiliar territory and she knows it. But not so unfamiliar that he doesn't take stock of her measurements. 

She tells him flat out that John loves him; she can see it clear as day because a disguise is only a self-portrait, that you wear your heart on your sleeve. She flirts with John, Sherlock counters with the hiker mystery. She flirts with Sherlock, he rushes to solve the ticket code. She thinks her heart is locked, but she wears her heart on her sleeve as well. Sherlock takes her pulse, fire/passion exposes her priorities.

Meanwhile, John is stewing jealously. Firstly, there's the symbolic implications of Irene, naked, in Sherlock's coat. And then she turns up later, nearly naked, in his bed (a nod to TPLOSH). Then the use of the dutch angle during the ticket deduction shouts that John is off balance, desperate to not be forgotten but also probably still imagining Sherlock and Irene on that desk in front of him. And each text is another stab in his gut. So he runs through a string of girlfriends that Sherlock doesn't notice, one of whom is also dressed like him. He hides behind the old 'I'm not actually gay' defense again and again. He knows that even after she's dead, twice, Sherlock holds on to that phone and doesn't really forget about her.

So Irene is here to make them both jealous, to tell them that they're in love. That's a key narrative purpose borrowed from PB and given to Irene for that reason. She is the instigator that makes them start to think 'Why is she making me so jealous? Am i in love?'

Which is exactly the purpose of The Countess in PB. She is only in the first chapter of the book and then never mentioned again; she has been excised from the movie entirely because she really only serves one narrative purpose - to make Buttercup jealous enough to realize she is in love with Westley.

Buttercup has become the most beautiful woman in the world. Exactly the type of woman Humperdink should marry if he wants the support of the people. So he sends his best friend, Count Rugen, to check her out. And Rugen, for some reason, brings his wife. She is described as a powerful and influential woman with exquisite taste, particularly in fashion, and is 'the single most feared and admired woman in Florinese history.'

"Her lips were painted a perfect red; her green eyes lined in black. All the colors of the world were muted in her gown. Buttercup wanted to shield her eyes from the brilliance."

Count and Countess arrive at Buttercup's farm to 'see their famous cows' which is a lame excuse to see Buttercup herself and if the rumors of her beauty are true. They are, of course, and the Count is transfixed by her.

His wife, however, immediately points to the lowly farm boy and demands he show her - specifically - just how he feeds these cows for that must be the secret of their fame. Westley dutifully leads her to the field and feeds the cows for her, and they leave.

A simple little scene, but not inconsequential. Later that night, Buttercup spends a sleepless night fretting over the fact that the Countess never stopped staring at Westley. The lowly farm boy, dirty and stupid, and this rich and powerful woman only had eyes for him. There isn't anything special about him. He's got muscles and a tan, sure but he works outside all the time. He's got the village girls after him but what do they know? The Countess is cultured and she will not stop staring at him. Maybe that's the kind of woman he's interested in, but why would Buttercup care about that because she certainly isn't interested in the farm boy... After several pages of jealous rambling thoughts, Buttercup finally realizes that she is in love with Westley, and that he has always been in love with her, and they share the most passion filled kiss since the beginning of time.

All because of the Countess, a character mentioned only once and then never again.

Of course, Irene never really goes away. She spends a whole year texting Sherlock which John confronts her about this at Battersea, which Sherlock overhears (more on that later). Again, Irene cuts right to the point that there is something more intimate about their relationship than John or Sherlock will admit. Then, when John finally realizes she hasn't actually been dead this whole time, tells Sherlock to get on with it. Irene, and the emotional turning point she represents, keeps returning in the narrative (remember, there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead) which to me proves she is more than just (what some consider) a disappointing representation of the canon Adler, she is The Woman for a reason.


End file.
